User talk:Natuur12

The file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike LicenseEdit

Hello. According to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

As long as you give credit which I did.

So why did you remove the Fanta logo file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoldupLeak (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Natuur12, Re this [1] - Are there any websites that allows you to see what images are being used outside of the Wikimedia project ?, I'm just intrigued :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's hard but you could use tinyeye or reversed image search via google but you will never cats all usage like incoming links from another wiki. Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Ahh right I wasn't sure if there was some special website or tool that could help or whatever, I've had TinEye installed for years in Chrome and never even use it!  , Ah well thanks for your help anyway :), Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Screenshot wikiwand.JPG, please revertEdit

I don't think, my work Screenshot wikiwand.JPG falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. That's, why I removed the speed deletion template, set by user Brimz and dropped a not at User talk:Brimz. Brimz ignored my friendly request to use normal deletion and put back speedy deletion, which I consider as a very unfriendly act!
Please restore my file, so I have the chance to upload a modified version without the disputable map. And please let me know, why you deleted and did not use the normal deletion, which would have given me the chance to discuss (and eventually solve the problem). Thank you in advance, regards --J. Lunau (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the file because file clearly violates our licensing policy. Derivative of google maps and de minimis doesn't apply to printscreens. Natuur12 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Please revert, I will upload a new screenshot without google maps --J. Lunau (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No I won't revert. But you can upload a new printscreen without google maps of course. Natuur12 (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand? If I do a complete new uploade, I have to do ALL already done work again (file description, valuated image, setting all links...) If you will not revert, I have to talk to other Admins and complain! --J. Lunau (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, since you are threatening me we are done here. Natuur12 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello Natuur12, as I already wrote above: I don't understand, what's going on! It was not my intent "threatening" you in any way, sorry. After your "No I won't revert" the only chance to save my work is, to ask other Admins for help. I am really sorry, how our conversation and this case turned out, regards --J. Lunau (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you need a copy off the file and the file description I can provide it to you if you give me an email address I can send them to. You don't have to mention it publicly, you can mail it to Special:EmailUser/Natuur12. (I wish I could just mail the info to you right away but the Wikimedia software doesn't allow me to send attachments when using the mail this user function.

You will need to get the valued image status again though. Natuur12 (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

No, VI is not the most important thing, but all the other stuff to this file. There was a del-discussion after that I already added lots of Licensing-templates. BTW, the screen shoot does not show any google logo, so no one could tell, if the very small map is google-map. But to avoid any problems in future I already have prepared an actual screen shoot without any google-map. I suggest to restore the complete file, so I can upload a new version without any google map. This hopefully will solve the problem and the screen-shoot can be used again in articles about de:Wikiwand --J. Lunau (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that file would be a different file than the one that got the VI-status. You can't just "transfer" the VI-status to a new file. Natuur12 (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
No Problem, I will remove VI-Template for new upload and do a new candidature. --J. Lunau (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Will mail you when I am at home. Currently not using a private device. Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your offer, a new version of the screenshot is already online and VI-Promoted. No further support needed. --J. Lunau (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Natuur12 (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello Natuur12, back in July 2015 you helped clarify the source and permission tag for uploading an image that came for the City of San Diego as PD-CAGov (File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg) for the Wikipedia article Cross Border Xpress. I was the founder and main negotiator for the Tijuana cross border terminal from 1986-2006. I obtained two more pictures from the City of San Diego to help clarify the "rapid development" of the Ejido Tampico between 2000-2006, and the Sinaloa drug tunnels dug from there and around the Tijuana airport (drug tunnel corridors) into Otay Mesa, San Diego which is covered in the Wiki articled but hard to visualize without images. I used these photos from the City of San Diego (same source as the TwinPorts image already used) as the base images to create two new images to help the reader see the rapid development and the reach of the Sinaloa cartel in and around the Tijuana airpoprt, which permission tag do I use?? Template:PD-CAGov as was used with the File:San Diego TwinPorts proposal-Ron Roberts 1991.jpg as the base pictures are Public Domain. The descriptors on the images I added to identify landmarks and drug tunnel corridors. Simply would like to make sure I use the correct source and permission tag for the two new uploads. Thank you Rnieders (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Rnieders,
As far as I'm aware that should be the correct tag. When in doubt, you can always ask for help from editors more familiar with the details of US copyright law in com:VPC. I'm European so in general I am more familiar with European law. Natuur12 (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the information on com:VPC, I will ask there, and also thank you for your help last year. All the bestRnieders (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

US emblemenEdit

Hoi, je hebt zojuist een hele rij DRs van unsourced bestanden als 'keep' gesloten, maar totaal zonder in te gaan op de nominatie-reden. Dat is zonde van jouw tijd en van mijn tijd, want nu moest ik ze opnieuw nomineren. Er is nu nog steeds niet bevestigd of deze emblemen wel echt zijn, of een hobby-creatie. Jaarlijks moeten we duizenden nep logos/vlaggen/emblemen enz. verwijderen. De enige manier om dat een beetje controleerbaar te houden is niet afwijken van onze regels voor bronvermelding. In een geval gaat het overigens om een 3D object, waarbij niet duidelijk is waar de rechten van de fotograaf liggen. Dat bestand heeft dus twee problemen. Jcb (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

hoi Jcb. Er was allereerst geen consensus voor verwijdering en ten tweede hebben we altijd nog com:INUSE. In ieder geval een deel van de bestanden is in gebruik. Welke regel omtrent brongebruik heb je het precies over? We hebben com:EVIDENCE maar dat gaat over bewijs over de auteursrechtelijke status. Niet over bewijs over de echtheid van een embleem. Mocht een van de afbeeldingen een auteursrechtenprobleem hebben, by all means. Nomineer hem gerust opnieuw maar dan omdat het bestand een auteursrechtenschending is. Natuur12 (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
De PD licentie is alleen geldig als het embleem echt bij de overheid vandaan komt. Zo niet, dan geldt het auteursrecht van de (onbekende) auteur. Dus ja, we hebben per definitie een copyright-probleem als niet vast is komen te staan dat dit de officiele emblemen zijn. com:INUSE is daardoor volledig irrelevant. Jcb (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Maar dat is niet de redden waarom je de bestanden nomineert en ze hebben een bron "31 AW/PA". Je nominatiereden is incorrect. Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
{no source} gebruiken wij als door het ontbreken van de bronvermelding niet bekend is wat de auteursrechtelijke situatie is. De tekst '31 AW/PA' kan iedereen er op goed geluk opplakken, dat is geen bruikbare bron. Bij de door mij genomineerde bestanden van dit type die door andere behouden zijn, was dat voor zover ik langs heb zien komen steeds nadat ze een hyperlink hadden geplaatst naar bijvoorbeeld een pagina op, waaruit de authenticiteit van het bestand bleek. Jcb (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Waar waarom nomineer je die bestanden dan met een scope gerelateerde reden en niet een die betrekking heeft op de auteursrechtelijke status van de bestanden? Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Het ontbreken van informatie over de herkomst is een reden die betrekking heeft op de auteursrechtelijke status van de bestanden. Jcb (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Nee want er zijn drie mogelijkheden. 1) het bestand is echt en daarom geen auteursrechtenschending 2) het is een hobbyding van de uploader en die heeft er een PD-tag opgeplakt en daarom is het geen auteursrechtenschending. 3) het is een neppert gejat van elders. Nu, we weten allebei dat misschien ergens vandaan gejat zonder verdure motivatie onvoldoende is om een bestand te verwijderen. Natuur12 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
(Zoals je zelf kunt zien) hadden de bestanden een PD USgov tag. Die is hoe dan ook alleen geldig als het embleem authentiek is en dat zal dus vast moeten komen te staan. Overigens zijn afgelopen maanden door diverse verschillende admins honderden van deze bestanden zonder verdere vragen wel verwijderd, jouw beslissingen wijken daar als enige van af. Jcb (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Een goed voorbeeld van hoe het wel moet staat inmiddels hier. Bestand is behouden, maar dan wel na het oplossen van het probleem. Jcb (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Jcb, dat er een aantal collega's op de autopillot verwijderd betekend niet dat er wat mis is met de manier waarop ik die DR's sloot. En hier wilde ik het verder bij laten. Natuur12 (talk) 14:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Er is de afgelopen weken hier uitvoerig discussie over geweest op diverse overlegpaginas en daaruit bleek dat de betrokken ervaren collega's het er gewoon mee eens zijn dat deze moeten worden verwijderd. Ik kan me voorstellen dat je het hier verder bij wil laten, maar laat dan voortaan dit soort DRs gewoon open staan. Jcb (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Nogmaals, jij had een verkeerde reden opgegeven. Basta. Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

OTRS issuesEdit

I'm trying to take on the massive backlog in permissions, particularly Commons.

I see that you handled one of the items mentioned in ticket:2016072710010682 but the original email list three images.

The second File:Wikland Plakat.jpg was deleted by the you because of a problem with the license. The deletion was on 29 August, while the permission email was on 27 August. My guess is that the image was uploaded earlier under an inappropriate license and deleted, missing the fact that a better license had been sent in.

A similar issue applies to: File:Der-rote-elefant allgemein.jpg (although not deleted by you.)

I'm happy to restore the two other images if my guess is correct that the initial licensing agreement was inappropriate and it was missed that an acceptable license was sent in on 29 August. Please let me know if I'm missing something.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Spilbrick,
I was about to pick up that specific ticket back than and already undeleted File:Wikland Plakat.jpg but than I realised that it contains third party logo's which means that the ticket will be a tough note to crack. Since I already had a couple of complex tickets back than I deleted the file again and left the ticket for someone else. Feel free to proceed as you see fit. Natuur12 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I restored the image that was not problematic, and left them a note about the one with the logos asking if they could provide the image without the logos. Thanks for explaining.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment at Commons:Undeletion requests/ArchiveEdit

Regarding your comment that this is becoming bad practice... My bad practice, JCB's bad practice, whose? I want to follow good procedure, so please clarify so I can get better in how I upload. Thanks.--Trilotat (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I wasn’t clear. I was trying to say that the way Jcb deals with insignia’s that have no source is bad practise. Those uploads have been here for years and can easily be fixed so there is no reason to just tag them with no source only to delete them himself 7 days later. You didn’t do anything wrong and follow the correct procedures. Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi - would you be able to reupload this deleted file to the English Wikipedia under fair use please? Ollieinc (talk) 07:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I will make it happen but please give me some time to read in on en-wiki fair use policy. Natuur12 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ollieinc: I asked someone more familiar with EN-wiki than I am to help out. See EN:file:Snapchat logo.svg. Natuur12 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No jokes?Edit

If anyone mentions hair surely it's inherently funny, only time it's not is if some arbitrary authoritarianism is enforced like NK's Kim does with his hair. -- Mentifisto 18:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

True but on second thought I found it a bit harsh to make jokes when someone is about to lose his tools. Natuur12 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I was joking about the rationale for doing so, not Kanonkas. -- Mentifisto 23:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand your rationale and I am not saying that you where wrong to make a joke but I had some second thoughts on mine. That's all. Natuur12 (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and a questionEdit

Thanks for your very reasonable review and actions, they are very much appreciated. I do have one question. At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_of_User:Piotrus in your review, with which I wholeheartedly agree otherwise, you mention "The edit war was wrong though but regarding the edit war, both parties where in the wrong." I thought that a single revert did not qualify as an edit war, and unless I am getting old and forgot something, I do not believe at any page I did more then a single revert. I tried following en:WP:BRD. Is Commons definition of edit war or understanding of BRD different? Can you clarify for me how did I edit war? Thanks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Sakai Cockpit A5M.jpg and File:Karel Eichler.jpg their edit history show that there was more than one removal of the no source tag and such things should be avoided. In short: don't be bold at Commons. We prefer to stay mellow. See Commons:For_Wikipedians#Cultural_differences and Commons:Don't be bold. Natuur12 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected. At one of those I indeed reverted twice, for which I do apologize, my only excuse is that the other party refused to explain things in edit summaries or talk so I tried to ask a question again in edit summary. In hindsight, I should have tried at talk again. Hopefully the tempers will cool down now. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


Er zijn landen waar dit zeker niet onder de TOO zou zijn, maar in de meeste landen wel. Als je om die reden de tag verwijdert, zorg er dan wel voor dat er A. een bijbehorende licentie in komt te staan, bijvoorbeeld {{PD-simple}} en dat het bestand B. verdwijnt uit de onderhoudscategory (Category:Images without source), anders blijven we er met elkaar mee bezig. Jcb (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We hebben het hier over Polen, niet Australië ofzo. Towarzystwo Akademickie Salia Silesia is de bron. Had je trouwens ook zelf op kunnen zoeken door op het artikel te klikken waarin deze afbeelding gebruikt wordt. Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

File:Rue de Stalon Luik (7106732571).jpgEdit

After a deletion discussion I initiated you deleted this image but it was restored a year later and I don't understand why based on the summary from the log. As far as I can determine the reasoning is still valid. Can you tell me or do I have to ask the deleting admin? Ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The law regarding FOP changed in Belgium. They now have a FOP-provision which covers 3D works, architecture and 2D works as long as they are designed to be placed on a permanent basis in public place. The new law became effective in July of this year and since than most deletions because there was a problem concerning FOP have been undone. Natuur12 (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. I was not aware of that change I shall have to refresh my FoP knowledge. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Natuur12".